The quote below was from the CreationScience website and was presented by 'Perpetual Motion'.

perpetual motion wrote:I have no idea how they could find out about this. Is this from another imaginative paper theory from the mainstream Mensa group.

"(Dust) particles larger than (about one 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter) form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. (This cloud produces zodiacal light).Forces acting on these dust particles (called the Poynting-Robertson effect) should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old)".

If this dust cloud exists now, then it must be older than 10,000 years. This dust could have been created by such events as a large number of comet tails spewing dust from one of their tails, or from such a event such as a major collision, or from plasma arc discharges such as the postulated close encounter with Mars, or the release of Saturn's plasma axial column of satellites. The solar system may be much older and some process replenished this dust. Is my thinking correct?

I have a geometric analysis similar to the Titius-Bode pattern that locates the semi-major axes and approximates the masses of the outer planets; it predicts the existence of a 3xPluto-mass object orbitally located near Pluto's aphelion. I will be quite interested to see if that shapes up!

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Stars form by the gravitational collapse of interstellar gas. Prior to collapse, this gas is mostly in the form of molecular clouds, such as the Orion Nebula. As the cloud collapses, losing potential energy, it heats up, gaining kinetic energy, and the conservation of angular momentum ensures that the cloud forms a flatted disk—the accretion disk.

The initial collapse of a solar-mass protostellar nebula takes around 100,000 years.[6][7] Every nebula begins with a certain amount of angular momentum. Gas in the central part of the nebula, with relatively low angular momentum, undergoes fast compression and forms a hot hydrostatic (non-contracting) core containing a small fraction of the mass of the original nebula. This core forms the seed of what will become a star.[6] As the collapse continues, conservation of angular momentum dictates that the rotation of the infalling envelope accelerates, which eventually forms a disk.

What about "gas pressure"? Not one word. There isn't any when you don't need it for your theory. Gas "undergoes fast compression" and the "collapse" simply "continues". No pressure. Maybe gases experience pressure only when they are on Earth... If we believe Wikipedia, the atmosphere should simply collapse on us, and form a liquid, then a star... I don't know why that does not happen, it's a mistery.

And a question: shouldn't that dust or gas in the accretion disk - accumulate a static charge through friction?

How does a planet's liquid core form? Let's skip the part about "gas" that forms stars then the stars form pieces of rock and dust and iron (needed to form planets) when they explode. If we have billions of pieces of rock, in close proximity to one another, is gravity enough to squeeze them together and melt them? Melt most of them in fact, the Earth is mostly melted material, the crust is very thin relatively:

Also, how does accretion deal with the fact that gravity does not attract stuff towards a center point, but towards the place with the most mass. That's why in theory if there was a hole through the Earth, in the middle we would be weightless.

I have oft seen stated that these gas giants, and perhaps our other two, as well, emit more energy than they receive from the Sun. Presumably, this calculation is based only on electromagnetic radiation that these planets receive. If you add in the energy they receive in the form of dark mode plasma currents, they may be getting more energy from the sun than has been calculated heretofore.

I have seen that Amps (big number) have been calculated for Birkeland currents in a far away galaxy. I don't know how difficult it is to estimate energy content in dark mode Birkeland currents, or even if we have the necessary data collected to make an estimate.

BeyondTheVeil wrote:I have oft seen stated that these gas giants, and perhaps our other two, as well, emit more energy than they receive from the Sun. Presumably, this calculation is based only on electromagnetic radiation that these planets receive. If you add in the energy they receive in the form of dark mode plasma currents, they may be getting more energy from the sun than has been calculated heretofore.

I have seen that Amps (big number) have been calculated for Birkeland currents in a far away galaxy. I don't know how difficult it is to estimate energy content in dark mode Birkeland currents, or even if we have the necessary data collected to make an estimate.